Re: 3D printing

Date: Sat Jul 12 1997 - 14:50:12 EEST

Karl Denton

In a message dated 97-07-12 02:06:01 EDT, you write:

<< The concept modeler that we have >>
<< does not give the company I work for any advantage at all >>

You might be amused to read about the "flat plate Model A Copier" produced by
Haloid around 1950. It was "awkward in its lack of coordinated design, it
required more than a dozen manual operations before it would produce a copy.
. . . . . without exception the firms which (tested it) reported they were
sorry but the copier was far too difficult and complicated to operate. They
simply could not use such a system. Too often it produced papers that were
illegible or otherwise defective."

By lucky accident, the disappointed executives discovered that this primitive
machine (its patents rejected by IBM, Kodak and many other "big players")
could produce offset printing masters. Fortunately, Haloid was able to
continue its development with revenue from sales to offset printing companies
such as Addressograph-Multigraph - because its awkward machine cut zinc plate
costs by a factor of ten.

Imagine what the overworked guy at Addressograph-Multigraph would have said
if somebody asked him what potential the "exciting" new process had for
general office use! "Are you crazy? They're lucky to sell a few of these
machines to us harried printers! No general office will EVER want one - they
want quality printing, not difficult, often illegible, imitations."

You know the rest of the story. That's why the book is entitled "My Years at
Xerox- The Billions Nobody Wanted."

Some might call it a "paradigm shift."

Norm ("When?") Kinzie

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:51 EEST